Three Oracles, Nine Priests

Three Oracles, Nine Priests

"What is the law?" is the recurrent question asked by a republican nation. With deliberate speed--though the summer holidays approach--with majestic instancy, nine remote men make answer in thousands of decisions, mostly technical and dull.

Ever and anon a case dustily tagged U. S. v. Jones & Co. is odorous of destiny. The Justices, sniffing the issue, settle deeper into their chairs, droop lower their traditionally half-closed eyelids, put more innocently their occasional question to distinguished counsel standing below the rail.

After each case has been publicly presented, each of the Justices masters the printed record and arguments; the Justices consult the oracles in the stillness of their various studies, or under the foliage of Rock Creek Park. The Oracles:

The Past. They ponder the Constitution of 1789, the immemorial principles of English Common Law, Roman Law, social ethics dating from Moses, previous decisions of the court. This is the oracle of Precedent.

The Present. They examine a recent law or statute, guess what the lawmakers meant or would have meant if they had thought of the question in dispute. This is the oracle of Interpretation.

The Future. They consider "public policy." And this oracle is so variable that a law which was held unconstitutional in 1850 may be eminently constitutional in 1950.

The court then meets in private and discusses the case; each Justice, beginning with the senior, gives his opinion in turn. If agreement is reached, the Chief Justice appoints one of the Justices to write the decision of the court; if agreement is not reached, one or more Justices may express their dissent in a dissenting opinion or in several such.

The judgment of the court and the opinion in which that judgment is expressed are not synonymous. The judgment is always the judgment of the majority and the sole legal decision. The discussion, showing the method of thought pursued in reaching that conclusion, is the opinion.

The past year has been fairly replete with big cases: Those decided:

1) Industrial Relations Court of Kansas was shorn of its power (TIME, Apr. 20).

2) The N. Y. State statute prohibiting the night employment of women in restaurants in large cities was upheld.

3) A clause in the Clayton Act requiring a trial by jury for contempt proceedings was upheld.

4) A state can tax shares in a National Bank.

5) The Michigan Motor Vehicles Act, making motor vehicles for hire subject to regulations for Common Carriers, was held to be an unreasonable burden on Interstate Commerce.

Those to be decided:

1) Has the President the power to dismiss Federal officeholders without consent of the Senate (TIME, Apr. 20 for arguments) ?

2) Is the Oregon Law against private (parochial) schools constitutional (TIME, Mar. 30 for argument) ?

3) Can income taxes put on public men be published in public prints (see below) ?

4) What, in detail, is the Income Tax Law (see below) ?

William H. Taft is better known to his contemporaries than any Chief Justice in U. S. history. Due to the increasing intricacy of the connection between fundamental law and business, the decisions made by him and his fellows affect the lives of his contemporaries more immediately than the decisions of any of their predecessors. When they seek summer rest--Mr. Taft at Murray Bay--they will have finished a record year of "big" decisions.